Police confessions of accused are inadmissible by Section 25 Evidence Act. They cannot be relied on either at trial or at bail stage to implicate co-accused. Only when allegations appear frivolous or baseless can political bias or mala fides weigh. Applying this ratio, the Court held that reliance solely on co-accused confessions cannot justify denial of bail.

NDPS ACT — Bail — Second Bail Application — Section 37 NDPS Act — Confessional Statements of Co-Accused — Inadmissibility under Evidence Act — No independent material linking petitioner — Long incarceration — Charge-sheet filed — Conditions imposed.
Where petitioner was implicated only on basis of confessions of co-accused; seized contraband was commercial quantity but no independent incriminating material surfaced even after investigation; petitioner in custody for 160 days, charge-sheet filed, co-accused already granted bail — Held, custodial continuation unnecessary, bail granted with conditions — Reference made to P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 on inadmissibility of police confessional statements.
(Crl.P. No.11527 of 2025, decided on 08-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural History

• Second bail application filed under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS.

• Petitioner arrayed as Accused No. 8 in Crime No.129/2023, Narsipatnam Rural Police Station.

• First bail application was dismissed on 10-10-2025 due to ongoing investigation.

2. Prosecution Narrative

• 138 kg of ganja seized from Accused Nos.1 to 6, who were arrested at spot.

• Their confessions implicated the petitioner.

• Petitioner was not arrested at scene, but later apprehended on 28-06-2025.

3. Defence Submissions / Factual Mitigation

• No independent material except co-accused confessions.

• Petitioner has permanent residence in Telangana; no adverse criminal antecedents.

• Charge-sheet filed after full investigation.

• Petitioner has undergone 160 days custody.

4. Judicial Evaluation

The Court noted:

• Co-accused confessions alone are insufficient to prima facie establish complicity.

• No apprehension of witness intimidation or interference in investigation because charge-sheet stands filed.

• Co-accused already granted bail — parity principle operates.

• Continued pre-trial incarceration serves no valid purpose given pendency before trial court.

5. Governing Legal Principles Applied

A. P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157

The Court quoted:

• Police confessions of accused are inadmissible by Section 25 Evidence Act.

• They cannot be relied on either at trial or at bail stage to implicate co-accused.

• Only when allegations appear frivolous or baseless can political bias or mala fides weigh.

Applying this ratio, the Court held that reliance solely on co-accused confessions cannot justify denial of bail.

B. Bail principles under NDPS jurisprudence

While Section 37 ordinarily restricts bail for commercial quantity offences, the Court implicitly accepted:

• Lack of independent material weakens prima facie case,

• Charge-sheet filing reduces necessity of custody, and

• Stringent conditions can secure attendance and prevent misuse.

CONCLUSION

The Court found that:

• Petitioner’s involvement rested only on co-accused confessions, inadmissible at law.

• Investigation is concluded, charge-sheet filed, and custody beyond 160 days was unjustified.

• Co-accused who were spot-arrested have already been granted bail, warranting parity in exercise of discretion.

Accordingly, Criminal Petition allowed, granting bail subject to:

1. Rs.50,000 bond + two sureties,

2. Mandatory presence before trial court each hearing,

3. No re-offending, failing which the State may seek cancellation of bail.